"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and
"Why *the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.
off

you forgot one word ;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before*
the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the
UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has
now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report
from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's
main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and
only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite
clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he
issued his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but
that the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took
place.



So, based on this, you're comfortable assuming that the transfer DID
take place? What does that accomplish? Answer carefully. This is a
trap.

It allows the Russians to hide their involvement in helping Saddam build
post-embargo WMD's.




So now it's my turn to ask you a question:
How does this help Syria?

(Hint: Putin just made a trip to Israel. What issue did the Israelis
want to discuss?)


Even more interesting: How does it help Russia?

If the Russians were wangling to maintain access to oil, they were
certainly doing it the old way, which works just fine - play one party
against the other by giving arms to whoever is most useful. Hey....we do
that sometimes, too. Works great, usually. This leads to an important
question: Since this sort of power brokering often results in no
violence, but lots of fear and respect, why do you suppose your president
chose a way which accomplished the exact opposite?

Because we couldn't afford to let this one play out. Imagine what would
have happened to oil prices (and our economy) if we let al Qaeda oust us
from Saudi Arabia, and overthrow the House of Saud. Meanwhiel Saddam
continued to sell oil to Russia, China, Syria, etc. and re-arm himself in
violation of the embargo.

Our economy would have gone to ****, our military weakened, China, Russia,
Syria, and Iraq's military strengthened, and Iran would have obtained
nukes with no US presence on either border.

Interesting fantasy, but Iraq was in no way connected with our ability to
come to the aid of Saudi Arabia if the AQ scenario played out as you say.
Matter of fact, it can be easily demonstrated that in our current situation,
we are less able to defend Saudi oil.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of
their nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could
time the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have
to try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some
of the news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks
were reporting comments from the military, and even companies like
Raytheon, about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which
needed work).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's.
In the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to
them.


So? We violate treaties when it's convenient.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and "Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

Really? Show me how you came to that conclusion, NOYB. What piece of
literary information do you have that says that "why TO ****" isn't
proper, and "why THE **** is"?

Now, for your information, because you think you are such a profanity
genius, it would be the DAMNED saying, not the damn saying.

NOYB wrote:
Now you're learning!

Learning what? That you still can't do math? That you still think
everything bad is Clinton's fault?



... We reached the zenith in 1998,
and it's been all down hill from there.


Yep... following the longest peacetime economic boom in history. Not a
bad record over all. There were still a LOT more jobs, and more
manufacturing jobs, when Clinton left office than when he was elected.

Why do you keep skipping over this fact, NOBBY? Too painful?



You think it's good that Clinton presided over a 2 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by 4%?

I think it's better than Bush presiding over a 4 1/2 year period where
manufacturing jobs declined by more, and all other job growth was
pathetically low.


Yes, by golly, a 2 percent drop in the very last part of Clinton's 2nd
term,


You really can't follow a thread, can you?

4% drop...not 2%.

Do the math, NOBBY.



... Now
look at Bush's record... he took a downward trend and let it get far worse.


At least you admit that he inherited a "downward trend".


And has failed to even slow it down, much less reverse it. But hey, the
economy's booming folks! Really it is!


How come you still haven't explained why President Bush didn't say last
year, 'Yes we have lost a lot of jobs but we're gaining them back"


Because he *did* say that.

No, he didn't Nobby. If you're going to lie, at least make it *slightly*
difficult to disprove. The RNC put up a huge smokescreen campaign based on
the household survey statistics, which weren't intended to be used as a
labor indicator at all.



I've got news for you:
The conventional wisdom is changing. There has been a huge discrepancy
between the Household and Payroll surveys. Historically, folks (at the CBO
and Fed) relied more heavily on the payroll data. However, things are
beginning to change.

Oh, so now you try to backpeddle and pretend it's a mix up in the
sourcing of statistics?

Did President Bush admit that he had lost America jobs, or didn't he? I
sure don't recall such a statement, OTOH I do recall a LOT of
spinmeistering of the sort you're trying to pull now.

Was Bush honest enough to admit the facts which you stated earlier
(although you had a hard time with the numbers)?

No.

Case closed.

Oh wait, that list of important things Bush has lied about... add this
to it... never mind, it's already so long we can't see the end of it
from here...

DSK

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before*
the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that
the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has
now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report
from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's
main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and
only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite
clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he
issued his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but
that the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took
place.



So, based on this, you're comfortable assuming that the transfer DID
take place? What does that accomplish? Answer carefully. This is a
trap.

It allows the Russians to hide their involvement in helping Saddam
build post-embargo WMD's.




So now it's my turn to ask you a question:
How does this help Syria?

(Hint: Putin just made a trip to Israel. What issue did the Israelis
want to discuss?)


Even more interesting: How does it help Russia?

If the Russians were wangling to maintain access to oil, they were
certainly doing it the old way, which works just fine - play one party
against the other by giving arms to whoever is most useful. Hey....we do
that sometimes, too. Works great, usually. This leads to an important
question: Since this sort of power brokering often results in no
violence, but lots of fear and respect, why do you suppose your
president chose a way which accomplished the exact opposite?

Because we couldn't afford to let this one play out. Imagine what would
have happened to oil prices (and our economy) if we let al Qaeda oust us
from Saudi Arabia, and overthrow the House of Saud. Meanwhiel Saddam
continued to sell oil to Russia, China, Syria, etc. and re-arm himself in
violation of the embargo.

Our economy would have gone to ****, our military weakened, China,
Russia, Syria, and Iraq's military strengthened, and Iran would have
obtained nukes with no US presence on either border.

Interesting fantasy, but Iraq was in no way connected with our ability to
come to the aid of Saudi Arabia if the AQ scenario played out as you say.
Matter of fact, it can be easily demonstrated that in our current
situation, we are less able to defend Saudi oil.

Look at a map, Doug. There is no better geographically strategic location
in the Middle East than Iraq for stomping out terrorism and protecting the
region's oil supply. We now have Iran and Syria sweating bullets...and it
gives us the flexibility to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia to help
quell their extremist uprising.

It has put tremendous pressure on neighboring countries to clean up their
acts, lest we do it for them.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of
their nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to
sell Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and
driving east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they
could time the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only
so far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally
have to try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember
some of the news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the
networks were reporting comments from the military, and even companies
like Raytheon, about new technologies we were pleased with (or those
which needed work).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's.
In the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to
them.


So? We violate treaties when it's convenient.

So what. You specifically mentioned the US weapons found in Iraq during the
first Gulf War. I simply reminded you that those weapons were sold to Iraq
during the Iraq/Iran conflict when no trade embargo existed.

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Why to ****...

I can't take it any longer! The damn saying is "Why *the* ****..." and
"Why
*the* hell..."

It's NOT "Why *to* ****..." and "Why *to* hell..."

Now go back to beating on your keyboard, Kevin.

Really? Show me how you came to that conclusion, NOYB. What piece of
literary information do you have that says that "why TO ****" isn't
proper, and "why THE **** is"?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/thehell.html

NOYB wrote:
So what. You specifically mentioned the US weapons found in Iraq during the
first Gulf War. I simply reminded you that those weapons were sold to Iraq
during the Iraq/Iran conflict when no trade embargo existed.


Hmm... no trade embargo against Iraq in the 1980s, yes... but wasn't
Saddam just as brutal a dictator then as he was in the 1990s? Wasn't he
trying to build atom bombs so he could launch them with Bull's orbital
super-cannon? Didn't he shoot up a U.S. Navy warship and kill a bunch of
American sailors?

You say it's perfectly OK to sell weapons to a brutal anti-US dictator
under those circumstances, even if he didn't have WMDs in 2003 or any
links to Al-Queda?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1
trillion or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all
been spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of
sense.

DSK



What real money does government generate?